A Sense of Entitlement – Why and how to Manage

What causes it, why it matters, and how leaders can address it without undermining motivation.

Imagine a highly capable employee who believes their results excuse the way they speak to colleagues. A manager who insists on accountability from everyone except themselves. Or a team member who expects first consideration for every opportunity but sees little reason to consider anyone else’s needs.

The issue is not that these people want recognition, reward or influence. Those expectations may be entirely reasonable.

The issue is the assumption underneath: my contribution, position or importance means that the normal responsibilities of working with others should apply differently to me.

That is the form of entitlement leaders need to understand—and be prepared to challenge.

What Is Workplace Entitlement?

In psychological research, entitlement generally describes an exaggerated sense of deservingness: a belief that one should receive more, or be treated more favourably, than others. The foundational research by Campbell and colleagues examined it as a relatively persistent personal tendency, rather than simply a response to a particular promise or achievement. Later workplace research has also explored how situations can activate or strengthen entitled expectations.

However, the word needs careful handling.

An employee who asks for fair pay, challenges an unreasonable decision, seeks a promised development opportunity or raises a concern about workload is not necessarily displaying entitlement. In Australia, minimum employment entitlements are also legal protections—not rewards for exceptional performance.

A useful distinction is:

A legitimate expectation asks whether the organisation is honouring a fair obligation. Excessive entitlement assumes that my interests should take precedence without sufficient regard for the obligations, evidence or other people involved.

Consider the difference between:

“I would like to discuss whether my pay reflects the responsibilities I have taken on.”

And:

“My contribution means I should not have to follow the same approval process as everyone else.”

The first is a reasonable conversation. The second is a claim to exemption.

Even then, leaders should investigate rather than diagnose. There may be an agreement, an accommodation or relevant context they do not know about.

The task is to examine the expectation and the behaviour—not attach a personality label to the person.

Why It Can Become So Damaging

One reason entitlement deserves attention is its association with the treatment of other people.

In a study of 223 employees, Paul Harvey and Kenneth Harris found that stronger psychological entitlement was associated with more workplace political behaviour and mistreatment of colleagues. Job-related frustration helped explain those relationships statistically. This was an observational study, so it does not establish that entitlement inevitably causes those behaviours, but it identifies a meaningful workplace risk.

There is also a potentially self-reinforcing emotional pattern. In their review, Joshua Grubbs and Julie Exline proposed that inflated expectations make disappointment more likely; disappointment can then be interpreted as injustice, prompting anger and renewed insistence on special treatment. They presented this as a theoretical cycle supported by existing evidence—not an inevitable response in every person.

This helps explain an important leadership difficulty: a decision can be reasonable and still be experienced as deeply unfair.

But it also creates a responsibility for the leader. They must establish whether the decision really was fair, rather than assuming that an unhappy employee simply has an attitude problem.

What Causes It?

Individual tendencies are part of the explanation—but not the whole explanation

The foundational research suggests that some people have a stronger general tendency to believe they deserve preferential treatment. Across nine studies, Campbell and colleagues developed and tested a measure of psychological entitlement and examined its links with interpersonal behaviour, including selfish choices and aggression following an ego threat. Much of this was laboratory or student research, rather than research inside companies.

That matters because organisations do not start with identical people.

However, it would be a mistake to treat entitlement as entirely fixed, or to assume that recruitment is the only opportunity to address it. Workplace researchers have specifically examined the interaction between individual predispositions and organisational conditions.

The more useful management question is not simply, “Who has an entitled personality?”

It is also, “What expectations and behaviours are our systems encouraging?”

Organisations May Reward The Very Behaviour They Dislike

Glenda Fisk’s influential conceptual paper proposed that excessive entitlement can escalate when organisational practices interact with individual tendencies and counterproductive behaviour is rewarded. Recruitment messages, performance appraisal and reward arrangements all feature in her model. This is a proposed explanation of how entitlement develops—not a controlled demonstration that any particular benefit or management practice will cause it.

Nevertheless, it provides a valuable lens for examining everyday decisions.

Suppose a manager repeatedly gives someone an exception because dealing with their objection is exhausting. Or a technically brilliant employee is allowed to disregard conduct expectations because replacing them would be difficult.

A question worth asking is: what is the organisation making advantageous?

Is it cooperation, reliability and contribution? Or persistence, pressure and being difficult to challenge?

This is where the description of entitlement as “insidious” is useful. The concern is not necessarily one dramatic event. It may be a series of small concessions that leaders never intended to become a system.

That is an organisational pattern to investigate, rather than proof that an attitude literally spreads like an infection.

The organisation may have created expectations it now wishes to disown

Not every disappointed expectation is excessive entitlement.

Research on the psychological contract examines employees’ perceptions of the promises and obligations between themselves and their employer. A meta-analysis by Zhao and colleagues linked perceived breaches with mistrust, lower job satisfaction and commitment, and poorer work-related outcomes. It also found a relationship with intentions to leave, although not with actual turnover in that analysis.

Consider a hypothetical employee who accepted a demanding assignment after being told it would lead to a particular development opportunity. When that opportunity disappears, management describes their disappointment as entitlement. Perhaps the employee is being unreasonable. But perhaps the organisation has failed to honour the understanding it created. Likewise, a benefit repeatedly provided without clear conditions can become part of what someone understands the employment arrangement to be.

Before challenging an expectation, ask:

“What led you to believe this would happen?”

The answer may reveal an inflated assumption. It may also reveal a promise nobody documented, an inconsistent decision or a manager who avoided an honest conversation.

Even “Going The Extra Mile” Can Have A Darker Side

One of the more interesting findings challenges the idea that entitlement is only associated with people who do too little.

Kai Chi Yam and colleagues examined what happens when employees feel compelled by external pressures to undertake helpful activities beyond their formal responsibilities. Across two multisource field studies and an online experiment, they found support for a pathway from pressured extra-role behaviour to psychological entitlement and then misconduct.

The proposed mechanism is moral licensing: feeling that previous good deeds provide permission to behave less well afterwards.

In everyday language:

“After everything I have done for this place, I have earned the right to ignore that requirement.”

This does not mean that helping colleagues produces misconduct, or that seeking compensation for extra work is entitled. The important conditions include the pressure behind the extra effort and the subsequent claim to behavioural permission.

For leaders, the practical implication is to examine their own expectations. When exceptional effort becomes a permanent requirement, the response should include a workload and resourcing conversation—not simply another appeal for commitment.

How Do You Prevent It Without Demotivating People?

The research does not provide a guaranteed intervention that eliminates entitlement. The following approach combines findings about entitlement with stronger, broader evidence about fairness, motivation and recognition.

1. Make the employment relationship clearer—not colder I would distinguish three things that are too easily mixed together.
2. Basic obligations and respect: what the organisation must provide and what people should not have to earn through exceptional performance.
3. Contribution and responsibility: the work, conduct and cooperation reasonably expected of the role.
4. Additional rewards and opportunities: how decisions about discretionary recognition, promotion, development and other benefits are made.

The purpose is not to turn every interaction into a transaction. It is to remove ambiguity about what is guaranteed, what is conditional and what requires a conversation. For example, avoid a vague promise such as:

“Keep doing what you’re doing and we’ll look after you.”

A more useful conversation would be:

“The next-level role requires these capabilities and responsibilities. Let’s assess where you are now, agree the development support, and review progress in three months. That review does not guarantee a vacancy or promotion.”

Also be clear that not every pay adjustment is a prize for exceptional performance. Market alignment, changed responsibilities and existing obligations are different questions from discretionary recognition.

Clarity should apply to the organisation’s responsibilities as much as the employee’s.

Keep Appreciation—But Separate Recognition From Exemption

Withdrawing appreciation is not a sound default response to concerns about entitlement.

In a field experiment involving more than 300 workers completing a short data-entry assignment, Bradler and colleagues found that unexpected public recognition increased subsequent performance. The study was short-term and did not test whether recognition prevents or creates entitlement, but it demonstrates why leaders should not assume that appreciation undermines effort.

My practical recommendation is to recognise specific contributions without implying superior personal status. For example:

“The way you checked those figures prevented a problem for the whole team. Thank you.”

That is different from:

“You’re the only person here we can rely on. The usual rules don’t really apply to you.”

Recognise reliable everyday work as well as exceptional achievements. But keep conduct expectations separate from technical results.  An employee can deserve a sincere thank-you, an excellent performance rating or a substantial reward—and still need to change how they treat colleagues.

Appreciation Is Not A Waiver Of Accountability.

Protect fairness, including when the answer is no

The broader evidence on organisational fairness is especially relevant here.

A meta-analysis of 183 studies by Colquitt and colleagues examined four dimensions of fairness: outcomes, decision-making procedures, interpersonal treatment and explanations. These dimensions were associated with important outcomes including job satisfaction, commitment, citizenship behaviour and performance. This is evidence for the importance of fairness—not proof that fair treatment removes psychological entitlement.

Applied practically, a leader should be able to answer:

“Is the decision defensible? Was the process consistent? Did the person have an opportunity to provide relevant information? Have I explained it respectfully?”

Fairness does not require identical arrangements. Different roles, responsibilities and legitimate individual needs may justify different treatment. But a difference should have a defensible basis, not simply reflect who has the most influence.

A useful response to an unsuccessful request might be:

“I understand why you wanted this opportunity. The decision was based on these requirements and this evidence. I’m happy to discuss information we may have missed and what would strengthen your position for a future opportunity.”

That leaves room for disagreement and correction without promising that persistence will overturn a reasonable decision.

Preserve Agency While Maintaining Standards

Accountability does not have to mean controlling every detail of someone’s work.

A meta-analysis of 124 samples by Van den Broeck and colleagues found that different forms of motivation have different relationships with work outcomes. Enjoyment of work mattered, but personally valuing the purpose of a task was particularly important in predicting performance and helpful organisational behaviour. Motivation driven by external control had more limited behavioural associations and wellbeing costs.

A practical implication is to explain why a requirement matters and allow meaningful choice in how it is fulfilled.

For example:

“The handover information is necessary because the next team cannot work safely or efficiently without it. The information must be complete by Friday. You have flexibility in how you organise the work, and we can discuss what support is needed.”

That is neither indulgence nor micromanagement.

It offers autonomy within a legitimate responsibility. The employee can influence the method without unilaterally opting out of the obligation.

Address The Behaviour Without Attacking The Person

“You have a sense of entitlement” is rarely the most useful opening to a management conversation.

Instead, identify what happened, explain the impact, investigate the expectation and agree what needs to change.

Here is an illustrative conversation:

“Your technical contribution to this project has been important, and I want to acknowledge that.

“I also need to discuss the last two handovers. The agreed information was not supplied, and colleagues had to reconstruct it before they could continue.

“You said that, given your contribution, you should not have to complete that part of the process. What led you to understand that?”

Pause and listen.

“We can examine whether the process is unnecessarily burdensome or whether your workload needs adjusting. But we still need a reliable handover from everyone doing this work.

“Let’s agree what you will provide, what support you need, and when we will review whether it is working.”

When the response is, “After everything I’ve done for this company?”, a useful reply is:

“Your contribution deserves a proper discussion about recognition, workload and opportunity. It does not remove the need for a reliable handover. Let’s deal with both issues rather than using one to cancel out the other.”

There is an important research caution here: Harvey and Harris found that more supervisor communication was associated with less frustration among lower-entitlement employees but more frustration among those with stronger entitlement perceptions. “Communicate more” is therefore not a sufficient solution by itself. The study does not justify withholding feedback; it cautions against assuming that additional explanation will necessarily resolve the reaction.

Reset Expectations Honestly—And Start With Leadership

Where expectations have developed over years, avoid abruptly announcing that employees have become ungrateful.

First establish what was promised, what is contractually or legally required, what the organisation has consistently communicated, and what genuinely needs to change. Seek appropriate HR or employment advice before altering employment arrangements.

Then take responsibility for any ambiguity:

“We have not been clear about how this arrangement works, and I understand why people developed different expectations. Here is what we have established, what we are proposing, and how you can provide input.”

The leadership team should undergo the same examination.

Do senior people follow the conduct standards they promote? Are favoured employees excused from responsibilities? Do managers expect loyalty and extra effort while being vague about their own commitments?

I would not launch an initiative about “employee entitlement” without first asking leaders to identify the exceptions they grant themselves.

The Goal Is Not A Workforce That Never Complains

A reasonable boundary may disappoint someone. That does not automatically mean it is demotivating or wrong. Equally, silence does not demonstrate that the culture is healthy. Rather than measuring success by fewer complaints, I would look for clearer expectations, more defensible decisions, fewer unexplained exceptions, reliable follow-through and continued willingness to raise concerns.

The aim should not be to make employees grateful for whatever they receive. Nor should it be to satisfy every individual demand. It should be a workplace in which people can reasonably say:

“My contribution matters. My rights are respected. Decisions can be questioned. And I have responsibilities to other people.”

The opposite of excessive entitlement is not gratitude or compliance. It is mutual responsibility.

The research behind the article

These are the most useful sources for developing the piece further. The distinction between an empirical study, a meta-analysis and a conceptual paper matters: they answer different questions.

What The Evidence Does Not Justify Claiming

The workplace-entitlement literature has inconsistencies in definitions and measurement, highlighted by Jordan, Ramsay and Westerlaken’s review. It should not be treated as a settled explanation for every demanding employee or difficult team.

Nor does a high entitlement score mean someone will behave destructively in every setting. For example, Langerud and Jordan’s survey of 167 people found that relationships between aspects of entitlement and helpful workplace behaviour depended on self-monitoring—how people adjust their behaviour to social circumstances. The picture is more conditional than a simple “entitled people are bad employees” narrative.

My assessment is that the strongest article should make a firm case against unjustified preferential treatment, while being equally firm against broken promises, arbitrary management and the misuse of “entitlement” to dismiss legitimate concerns. That balance makes the argument more credible—and gives leaders something more useful than a label.